Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it reveals the multi-step process (6 layers), mentions cost in Zhimao Points, and implies side effects (openWorldHint=true). Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description enhances understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value, listing the process and outputs efficiently with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states the return values. It covers the process, cost, and parameters, making it complete for a tool with 2 required params and no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'target_domain' and 'target_company_name. The description adds only marginal value by framing parameters in a buyer context. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the tool's exact purpose: running a 6-layer contact enrichment for a buyer, listing the steps (scraping, LLM, etc.) and outputs (email, phone, WhatsApp, decision-maker names). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_buyer_intelligence' by focusing on contact details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While the description implies usage for enriching buyer contacts, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., analyze_buyer_intelligence) or when not to use it. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.